So you base your political theory, moral theory, or whatever you want to call it, on selfishness? Of all foundations, that foundation is the most unstable of all. What you want only matters to you. And what you want, is never going to be what your neighbor wants. Your neighbors desire may be that you be a devout muslim, and that all people should be devout muslims. That may be his selfish desire, but is completely inconsistent with yours. How can we call something either right or wrong based solely on selfishness? Your analysis reminds me of a conversation between Athens and Melos right before the Athenians killed them all. Here is a portion of the conversation.
Athenians. For ourselves, we shall not trouble you with specious pretences- either of how we have a right to our empire because we overthrew the Mede, or are now attacking you because of wrong that you have done us- and make a long speech which would not be believed; and in return we hope that you, instead of thinking to influence us by saying that you did not join the Lacedaemonians, although their colonists, or that you have done us no wrong, will aim at what is feasible, holding in view the real sentiments of us both; since you know as well as we do that right, as the world goes, is only in question between equals in power, while the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must. Melians. As we think, at any rate, it is expedient- we speak as we are obliged, since you enjoin us to let right alone and talk only of interest- that you should not destroy what is our common protection, the privilege of being allowed in danger to invoke what is fair and right, and even to profit by arguments not strictly valid if they can be got to pass current. And you are as much interested in this as any, as your fall would be a signal for the heaviest vengeance and an example for the world to meditate upon. Athenians. The end of our empire, if end it should, does not frighten us: a rival empire like Lacedaemon, even if Lacedaemon was our real antagonist, is not so terrible to the vanquished as subjects who by themselves attack and overpower their rulers. This, however, is a risk that we are content to take. We will now proceed to show you that we are come here in the interest of our empire, and that we shall say what we are now going to say, for the preservation of your country; as we would fain exercise that empire over you without trouble, and see you preserved for the good of us both. As you see the Melians attempted to appeal to the Athenians own self interest in setting precedent that may come around and visit itself upon the Athenians when they are no longer in power. The Athenians though hedged their bet that no one would do to them, what the Athenians were going to do to the Melians. Selfishness you see is completely subjective, it places no obligation on anyone else. On Jan 12, 3:51 pm, "Chris Jenkins" <[email protected]> wrote: > All of my positions are simply logical ones. They benefit both the self, and > society at large, and in doing so, offer a better quality of life to the > individual. All animals are selfish by default, even when that selfishness > is masked as altruism. Additional details interspersed below. > > Chris, > > > Why is it wrong to discriminate? > > To discriminate is to allow the possibility or the grounds for which you > yourself might be discriminated against. The only logical position is to be > against discrimination, in order to protect yourself. > > > Why is it wrong to morally legislate? > > Because it is arbitrary and capricious. Upon whose morals should we > legislate? Yours? Osama Bin Laden's? > > > Why is it wrong to deceive? > > I never suggested it was, and based on what I see in our society, I don't > think a good argument could be made that it is. > > 1. "Honey, do I look old and fat?" > 2. "George Washington admitted to chopping down the cherry tree, saying I > cannot tell a lie, it was me, Father." > 3. "Change you can believe in!" > > > And why do all of these elements give rise to a "social > > responsibility" to speak out against these "social detriments"? > > It must be some belief correct? Some knowledge? Not a lack of belief > > that gives rise to these "moral" outrages. > > Belief? No. Knowledge? Yes. > > It doesn't take much to analyze the quality of life between different > cultural phenotypes. Remember when I said all decisions are inherently > selfish? I much prefer to live in a fairly libertarian progressive society > as opposed to a Shariah, or for that matter, Fundamentalist Christian based > society. Genderal equality, freedom of speech, freedom of press, freedom of > religion, racial equality, freedom of orientation, freedom of ideas, and a > host of other liberties are not historically seen in nations governed by a > fundamentalist religious government. > > The other social detriments all have similar impacts. Why speak out against > Ponzi scams? Bernie Madoff's bad funds trickle down to my 401K. Why speak > out against gentrification? The continued getto-ification of neighborhoods > perpetuates a cycle of poverty and disempowerment which amplifies crime > (from which I could become a victim) and increases racial tension (by which > I am deprived of friends of different races) by reducing opportunity, > education, and family structure. Why speak out against government > corruption? Because they are increasing the tax burden on my paycheck. > > I am an activist for "good" because I am selfish. This is the human way. > > > > > On Jan 12, 11:09 am, "Chris Jenkins" <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > Lee, I can think the idea of a Pink Unicorn is nifty, although in my > > head, I > > > may feel it's a bit misguided. However, when the idea of the Pink Unicorn > > is > > > being used a basis for social policies which discriminate (gay marriage), > > > the foundation for moral legislation (marijuana prohibition, vice > > > legislation, etc.), and as a vehicle for deception (every tele-evangelist > > > from Oral Roberts to Jim Baker to whoever's on now...), then it becomes a > > > social responsibility to those of us who are operating from a rational > > > perspective to take a more active role, and speak out against what is > > > clearly becoming, or already is, a social detriment. > > > > On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 12:53 PM, Lee <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Yet how can a non-belife show the truth or not? > > > > > I have a non belife in Russell's teapot, but because I do not belive > > > > that such a thing does not exists, then there is no passion inherent > > > > in my non belife. > > > > > If however, I did have a belife that such a thing as Russell's teapot > > > > does not exist, then I may feel passionate enough to herangue those > > > > foolish enough to belive such a thing did exist. > > > > > You see what I'm saying here Chaz? > > > > > On 12 Jan, 16:03, chazwin <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > On Jan 12, 12:23 pm, Lee <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > Heh well of course KC that is becuase many Athiest who proclaim a > > lack > > > > > > of belife in diety are basiclay lying. They instead have a belife > > > > > > that such a thing as God does not exist. This then surly explains > > > > > > their passion. > > > > > > Nonsense. What make us passionate is feeling that people like you are > > > > > being duped and duping others. It is passion for truth. > > > > > > > On 11 Jan, 22:54, Kierkecraig <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > Well Chaz, it was a reasonable question. Is it so far fetched to > > be > > > > > > > surprised that someone who doesn't ascribe to a certain belief > > can be > > > > > > > so passionate about his absence of belief? It seems counter- > > > > > > > intuitive. You would imagine that people get passionate over a > > > > > > > possession of what they perceive to be "the truth", rather than > > just > > > > > > > an absence of belief in the proposition. Get passionate about > > not > > > > > > > believing that there is life on mars, for example, seems quite > > silly. > > > > > > > Being passionate about believing in life after death, heavenly > > > > beings, > > > > > > > salvation, little green men on mars, doesn't seem quite so out of > > the > > > > > > > ordinary to be passionate about. > > > > > > > > On Jan 11, 10:48 am, chazwin <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Jan 10, 6:30 pm, Kierkecraig <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Where do Atheists find such passion? > > > > > > > > > What kind of a question is that? You might as ask where do > > theists > > > > get > > > > > > > > their gaul from. > > > > > > > > Atheists get their passion from the same place that lions get > > > > their > > > > > > > > roar from; chimps get their urge to throw bananas. We are > > evolved > > > > > > > > animals -get over it. > > > > > > > > > > On Jan 9, 10:07 am, "Ian Pollard" <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Two questions I've been mulling over... > > > > > > > > > > > 1. The recent atheist bus campaign in London, saw buses > > with > > > > the slogan > > > > > > > > > > "There is probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your > > > > life." Members > > > > > > > > > > of Christian Voice -- in attempt to have the adverts > > removed -- > > > > have > > > > > > > > > > complained to the Advertising Standards Authority about the > > > > accuracy of this > > > > > > > > > > slogan. Would it be correct for atheists to now complain > > about > > > > the accuracy > > > > > > > > > > of the commercial activities of Christian churches (such as > > the > > > > Alpha > > > > > > > > > > Course)? Or, in reality, are said atheists far too busy > > arguing > > > > on Internet > > > > > > > > > > forums about whether the slogan is in fact *agnostic* and > > what > > > > the most > > > > > > > > > > accurate meaning of the word "probably" is? > > > > > > > > > > > 2. Should John Travolta be brought to trial for child > > neglect > > > > following the > > > > > > > > > > death of his son? Reports are claiming that his son, who > > > > suffered from > > > > > > > > > > autism, was denied prescription drugs and psychiatric > > > > counselling for his > > > > > > > > > > illness (that could have helped control his seizures) > > because > > > > of his > > > > > > > > > > father's Scientology beliefs. > > > > > > > > > > > Happy New Year! > > > > > > > > > > > Ian- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Minds-Eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
